Why would anyone consider going to Rugby school better than the mixed local comp?

[Charis2]

I read this article in the standard earleir, and just thought what is this headmaster on? Why is this scholarship presented as such a huge honour for the boy, when in fact it is a way of the school paying to improve its results by taking in some of the best sixth form students without fees.

What "lifechanging" opportunities does he expect he can offer, which Hassenbrook acadamy can't?

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/needs-pic-teenage-footballer-wins-70000-scholarship-to-boarding-school-that-invented-rugby-a2953791.html

Headmaster Peter Green said he hoped Michael and other Arnold Foundation scholars would have a “ripple effect” on their communities when they return home.

He said: “We might be able to be transformative and transform their lives. Then when they go to university, and after, they can start to transform their own local communities. It’s not about parachuting someone out of that. We want to keep their association with where they are from.”

What a snob. Does he think the staff at Hassenbrook only teach poor peoples maths and physics, and the maths at Rugby is somehow a better class of maths? perhaps he thinks the laws of physics perform better there too?

I hope this lad has fun, but I don't think for a moment his life is going to be in any way better because he spent two years mixing with rich snobs rather than normal people.

...'how unlike us'

oops my bad

Honestly you cannot even compare Rugby and NLCS in the same breath unless you are just really chippy about private education in general.

What's so bad about doing a vocational subject?

I certainly can compare them. Even if they are not the same. Grazia has said her child went to NLCS and said she was paying for the segregation. She also thinks its important not to mix or dilute IQ gene pools!

I would say that I care very seriously about this- you might want to belittle that by calling it chippy.

well OK you can compare them if you like.
but it is a bit of a silly comparison tbh, as I explained, they are totally different kinds of school. Other than that they charge fees.
Meh - some people get all upset about fees but have no compunction about eg lying about what religion they are or buying a great big house in the right area, whatever, to gain the same advantages.
At least the ones that just pay are more honest about it.

Vocational subjects are fine provided a pupil has a choice.

I note you don't comment on any of the other things I said about this school bertrand.

I would compare Westminster and Eton too.
I find it surprising that you have tried to minimise the fact that it is obviously extremely elite.

"I note you don't comment on any of the other things I said about this school bertrand."

Latin's a red herring

Ideally 2 MFL but sometimes funding and timetabling is an issue.

Personally I think 3 sciences are hugely preferable but I have to accept that doing double doesn't hold people back. And for schools with a large low and middle ability cohort, double actually makes sense.

If OFSTED has no issue with the way the higher ability cohort are performing then they must be making expected or better than expected progress.

I am just desperate to know where all of these London schools are that do the IB. Because my extensive research a few years ago told me that there weren't any.

Non fee paying, that should say.

"Meh - some people get all upset about fees but have no compunction about eg lying about what religion they are or buying a great big house in the right area, whatever, to gain the same advantages"

I would love to know what %age of people actually do that. It we will never know.

Lots of us don't agree with faith schools, lying about faith schools or buying into catchment either, by the way.

Why would you "not agree" with buying in catchment of a great state school in order to give your DCs a good education?

What other things that people do to get on in life do you "not agree" with? Eating? Sleeping? Working?

Well bertrand you are obviously very easily satisfied if you think the education on offer is good enough and prepared to accept OFSTED as your arbitur...

"Well bertrand you are obviously very easily satisfied if you think the education on offer is good enough and prepared to accept OFSTED as your arbitur..."

No, I'm not. But I think, as I have said frequently, that able supported children will get good results wherever they go to school, and that if we are discussing the private/state divide we should be talking about wider issues than GCSEs.

And I think that, while the needs of high attainers are of course important, the discussions on here are skewed too much in that direction. Many schools, like my ds's, have very few high attainers. In some years in the past it has had none. It makes perfect sense for a school like that to do double science, for example.

And I don't accept OFSTED as my arbiter. But if the school's entry on the league tables says that the vast majority of high attainers make at least progress, then it's doing something right. And if they aren't, it's doing something measureably wrong. Which is at least a better starting point for a discussion than "state schools espouse communist educationL principles" or whatever it was a past poster said.

I'd assume she visited my local offering, except for the fact it's unfortunately not unique. And ofsted did pick up on its able provision. Doesn't make any odds though, they just noted it wasn't good enough. It's beyond me why people think that's less unfair than the tiny minority in private. And why people think it's ok to have a state system that fails the most able.

Well I agree that the divide between state and private is about much more than GCSEs.

However, I do think that the GCSEs that are offered or not, how they are offered (in terms of choice and number) and when they are offered is a big issue.

These issues have an impact upon day to day experience, results and ultimate outcome for a child. A child who is not offered triple science cannot do well in it no matter how bright or well supported they are. But that will not cause OFSTED to even stir.

Well,I'm don't think any child should take more than 10 GCSEs anyway. And the new "all exams to be taken at the end of year 11" policy will impact hugely on lower ability kids while not making that much difference to the higher ability cohort. And yes, the widest possible choice would be great. But schools that need to put huge amounts of effort into numeracy and literacy just haven't got the spare resources for Mandarin and Ancient Greek. And yes, it's a bugger if my child wants to do music but can't. But it's much more important that there are enough resources to get some of his classmates to the C in English and Maths that will unlock doors for them that have been standing open for my kid since birth.

The danger inherent in an a la carte examination system like GCSEs and A-levels is the wide variation in provision across schools.

But they aren't plowing it into numeracy and literature are they? A catering gcse isn't exactly going to be a route out of poverty. And whilst your dc may have other doors open, you forget that for some children their ability is their only door.
All the local schools manage to organise their vocational stuff through colleges/ outside agencies etc. None I'm aware of have on site salons etc. So why can't they do the same between them for able children?

The reason I made the communist remark was because I repeatedly hear how fair it is for able children to sacrifice their advantage to the majority. Therefore I'd like to know if this levelling of advantage to make everyone equal is being applied to other areas too?

The reason I made the communist remark was because I repeatedly hear how fair it is for able children to sacrifice their advantage to the majority

You repeatedly hear that? I've never heard it once!

Lurked- you have no idea what a catering GCSE can do for some kids life chances. And yes, schools are plowing resources into literacy and numeracy. And the communist remark is just ridiculous....

seek you've not heard of mixed ability teaching then?

bertrand does it fuck, unless you have the literacy and numeracy to back it up there's nothing you can't pick up by leaving school and getting a job.

bertrand Why is it ridiculous? I don't notice anyone sacrificing their childs advantage in having extra curricular clubs, disposable income, holidays, supportive parents etc to share it with the less advantaged, so why should a child have to sacrifice their ability either?

If your household income is above tax credits cut off and therefore your dc have an advantage above others, are you/ would you be happy to give everything over that away to deprived children because you still won't starve? If the answers no then I really don't think you are in a position to suggest able children should give up their advantage because they'll still get ok grades. You also seem unable to grasp the fact holding back able kids disadvantages them in far more ways than gcse options/ results.

The fact is even if you look at those in powerful important roles from state schools, bog standard secondary and shit hole comp don't feature highly. If you want the unfairness of private schools and privilege reducing, then personally I think the only way that will happen is when people from disadvantaged or even financially average homes are in power. Which won't happen as long as the system itself sets up those with the potential to actually make it to the top up to fail.

I realise some commenting on my last post above may not have the benefit of a private school education BUT read what I said.

"like Henrietta Barnet, Watford Grammar and all those inner Londo comps, though."

HB is a grammar school. Watford G is not quite garmmar and there are the innner London comps too. The inner London comps have been doing pretty well just as the state grammars have in some areas - it seems to be a SE effect. I did not say those HB was an inner London comp. I used the word and.

"She also thinks its important not to mix or dilute IQ gene pools! "
I don't. I said though that there has been a huge trend to assortive mating - men waning a wife with a degree and similar income, much more than there used to be so their children tend to be bright and the parents tend to earn enough to pay school fees particularly where women work full time.

I did say I think it is helpful for bright children to be educated with similar children. It has certainly worked for us.

The SE effect - state and private schools being good is interesting. It is partly an immigrant effect as they work hard in state schools including the inner London comps. They get 2 GCSE grades ahead of Hull state schools.

The most important point above was the poster saying why do those against private schools think ensuring a child has a good exducation is wrong compared with picking the best state school in your area or compared with feeding the child a healthy diet or reading to it at night or not shouting at it all the time? The moral high gruond is in those who give their children the best they can including schools and including paying school fees. The fact you also relieve the state the cost of educating 500,000 children too is an extra plus point for you to polish your halo around.

I don't understand what you mean by "sacrificing their ability"